tv Day 7 of Trial for Derek Chauvin Accused in Death of George Floyd CSPAN April 6, 2021 9:34am-11:57am EDT
mr. floyd, they believed that he would not make it or survive so he was being transported via ambulance to hennepin county medical center and while at least the information i had that evening at 9:00 p.m., at that time at least i was told was still alive, i decided to contact the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension-- >> c-span2 live this morning for the trial of minneapolis police officer derek chauvin who is on trial for the death of george floyd, and you're watching c-span2. >> note your appearances. >> [inaudible] >> if an attorney is present and going to the podium you
should be able to see them at that time. obviously we're not in a position where you can consult privately with them today. but you've had a chance to talk with them, correct? that's yes? >> yes. >> all right. thank you. all right. this is mr. hall's motion as a witness to quash the subpoena. who would like to address it? mr. cousins, if you would? >> and you can take off your mask if you'd like. >> thank you, judge. good morning, your honor. >> good morning. >> mr. hall has been subpoenaed as a witness in this case by both the prosecution and defense. the defense counsel in their opening statement specifically names mr. hall and told the jury that they intend to call him and previewed what that testimony they believed would be. so in order to avoid any kind of delay or interruption in these proceedings, i notified all parties that mr. hall would be invoking his fifth amendment
privilege against self-incrimination were he called to testify. i then subsequently filed my notice, my motion to quash the subpoena. your honor at this point in time mr. hall has no immunity. he has been provided no immunity, no protection for his testimony whatsoever, and because of that, mr. hall is invoking his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination in several key areas of questioning that we believe he would face were he called to testify. >> well, let's stop you there. you said on certain areas that he would testify to. so there are some topics that would not incriminate him, is that correct? >> your honor, i cannot envision any topics that mr. hall would be testified to call upon on that would be relevant to the case that would not incriminate him. >> that's ultimately the court's decision, correct? >> yes. >> okay. but-- >> on a question by question
basis, is that correct? >> yes, your honor. >> okay. all right. go ahead. >> i interrupted you. >> no, that's okay, judge. just for brevity, i wanted to outline those areas that i believe mr. hall may face questioning. the first area where he would be invoking his privilege against self-incrimination is any activity that took place on may 25th, 2020 both before and after police arrived. >> okay. >> mr. hall's testimony in these matters would specifically put him in a position of being very close proximity to mr. floyd. there's an allegation here that mr. floyd ingested a controlled substance, as police were removing him from the car. a car, by the way, that has been searched twice my understanding, drugs haven about found in that car twice, and looking at prosecution constitution for third degree murder.
609.195 subdivision b and that statute third degree murder liability for someone involved in drug activity that eventually leads to overdose, and that statute is broad, judge. it does not just include the situation, a, sells drugs, b, then succumbs to overdose. it includes any activity directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, barttering, delivering, exchanging, administering, classifies scheduled one or two, so that statute is broad, judge and interpreted broadly by minnesota courts. it's not just that a and b situation. in fact, anyone who can be pointed to as a link in the chain of distribution. someone who prepares drugs for someone else, someone who acts as a go between. can be implicated in third degree murder so any of the activities that mr. hall would
be testifying about throughout that day and including before police arrived on may 25th, 2020 could potentially incriminate him not just drugs or drug sale and mr. hall would be invoking the fifth amendment privilege would be any personal knowledge he has of drug use by george floyd up to and including may 25th for the exact same reason, judge. it leaves him open to exposure on a potential third degree murder charge. any testimony regarding his activities with mr. floyd could leave him opened to potential incriminating himself. >> all right. i think what i'm going to do is ask mr. nelson to list for the court the topics and areas and whether there's something outside of what you just outlined. so maybe there is some common ground there. if you could just switch
places. >> your honor, it would be the defense intent to require mr. hall up to the following, certain events leading up to mr. hall and mr. floyd's arrival at cup foods earlier in the day, where they were, what they were doing, mr. hall's interactions with mr. floyd in the cup foods, including whether either party gave the other a counterfeit bill. whether or not mr. hall gave sold or otherwise provided mr. floyd with controlled substances. specifically, whether mr. floyd's behavior in the car, mr. hall previously described that mr. floyd was falling asleep that it was sudden. i would ask him questions about mr. hall's previous statements
to law enforcement that mr. floyd had indicated he did not intend to-- or that he was planning on taking these pills later when they got home, implying that mr. floyd took them before they left. mr. hall described seeing mr. floyd go for the ignition when the police arrived so his behaviors in the car at the time police arrived. mr. hall, i would intend to ask him about giving false names to police officers after they were intervened, after the police intervened. mr. hall is seen on a security camera taking something out of his backpack and throwing it. i would ask him about those and what it was that he threw. and i would also ask mr. hall about his decision to leave minnesota immediately after this incident and his subsequent apprehension by the texas rangers.
>> well, let me focus on couple of things. i think you would agree that any questions that he answers about the counterfeit bill falls within his-- could incriminate him, would you agree with that? >> yes. >> also the false information he would give to the police he would have a-- his rights there as well? >> yes. >> and what he took out of the backpack that that's a legitimate fifth amendment privilege to invoke there? r. >> yes. >> flight as circumstantial evidence of guilt, you would agree as fleeing went into motive as oppose today simply travelling to texas that could be incriminaincriminating, woul agree with that? >> yes. >> use and possession of drugs by both of them during that day, that could incriminate him based on counsel's representation, would you agree
with that? >> yes. >> it seems like just about everything that you want to ask him except the following, you would have a legitimate right to invoke fifth amendment against self-incrimination and that being how george floyd appeared when he was back in the car and falling asleep suddenly, would you-- >> well, i mean-- >> i'm sure the counsel is going to see it as incriminating. >> i do not believe that that in and of itself incriminates mr. hall in terms of a description of mr. hall falling asleep, but the implications because fentanyl was found in mr. floyd's system, that -- and it causes a person to fall asleep, that that would be ostensibly connected to ingestion of controlled substances, so, remotely perhaps, i would argue, but not in and of itself. >> all right. ms. cousins, would you--
and unfortunately, you don't have the benefit of having sat through all the testimony, but it appears that this would be a proper invocation of his fifth amendment rights for just about everything mr. nelson was talking about, the one exception appears to be his observations sitting in the passenger seat of the car as how mr. floyd appeared, that he was falling asleep and that it happened suddenly, very narrow. and the reason why i say that is because we have kind of a parallel of testimony from a clerk in the store who said mr. floyd appeared good natured, seemed to be having a good day, but he did appear to be high. i don't think i would allow counsel to ask whether he appeared to be high because that could inform some kind of an opinion for a basis that he
knew why he was under the influence. it seems to me his description, mr. hall's description of like the store clerk is not going to incriminate him if there is no questioning about how he is-- why he fell asleep, why he thinks he fell asleep, that there were drugs in the car, that he knew there were drugs in the car, that there was any possession by mr. floyd of drugs he saw that day. if we totally avoid that there were drugs and have mr. hall say i was in a passenger in the car which is already clear, there's video and evidence just for your knowledge that mr. hall is in the passenger seat and removed by the police. beyond that if that were established that he was the passenger when the police came up to the car, what was mr. floyd's position immediately before.
would you agree that's not incriminating if we keep the mentions of drugs or why or anything like that? >> no, your honor, i do not agree. >> how would that when it did not incriminate the clerk who said he was high, how would mr. hall saying that would incriminate him? >> first of all, judge, it's know the what evidence is front of the jury and what evidence they've heard. >> i'm using that analogy, that didn't incriminate the store clerk by saying he appeared high. and mr. hall saying it appeared he was falling asleep and happened suddenly. without anything else, it seems to be a parallel type evidence, i was using it as analogy. >> i understand, judge. the point is for mr. hall from incriminating himself, and for him even answering that question that he was in the car puts him in very close proximity with mr. floyd and close in time he was alleged to have ingested drugs and on that third degree murder charge. if there were to be a future
third degree murder charge and that caused mr. floyd to pass away from an overdose, him being in that car, what he observed, when he observed it. no, your honor, i would argue that it would definitely expose him to potential incrimination, not to mention, judge, this is a car where drugs were found twice. >> the state has that evidence, but that didn't incriminate him, him sitting next to george floyd, does not subject him to criminal yet. >> that's the key word, judge, yet. >> do you think his observations of how george floyd looked would incriminate him. >> i don't see how it would put him closer to criminal liability just with those observations. >> because it takes the onus,
what demeaners, behaviors, mr. floyd was exhibiting should they decide to charge mr. hall with an a crime and now they've got his testimony against him and that's fifth amendment privilege. >> if he's incriminated. just testifying would not make it incriminating. but his testify would be used in any future prosecution. >> anyway, mr. frank, do you need to weigh in? i don't think you have a dog in the fight? >> i do, your honor, i'd like to be heard briefly. >> sure. >> thank you, your honor. -- >> you're know the going to represent his interests? >> i am not. our dog in the fight is a fair trial for mr. chauvin, one trial. and what we can't have is invocation of this privilege in
front of the jury and this questioning that the court is offering or suggesting creates a huge problem and the reason why i cited the caldwell case to the court is because this questioning would not exist? a vacuum. we have to remember, too, that the standard is not just whether this evidence itself is inculpatory or creates a link. it now puts him in the vehicle and testimony from he himself creating a part of that link. exist in a vacuum. there would be other questions, we would be questioning about his credibility and other aspects of the interaction that would lead, unfortunately, and potentially to him invoking question by question in front
of the jury. >> but we regularly, in fact, did in this case, an in excruciating detail, motion in limine based on what could possibly incriminate him. limitations you've got to admit that the caldwell case was a different situation. that was a man who wanted to testify despite being warned that he could incriminate himself until he realized he could be in more than he thought. >> it's an illustration how despite that witness trying to tailor his evidence to meet a certain goal, it just couldn't be done and it led to, unfortunately in that case, there wasn't a jury sitting there, but implication that's where they ended up in that
case and we can't have that when we're in front of a jury. and mr. hall would be faced with the question by question determination of what we're arguing about this morning. that's why sort of the blanket invocation is allowed because the standard is rather broad. >> where, what case law says that there's such a thing as a blanket invocation of fifth amendment right? >> i can't cite the court the case yet, but innovation-- >> i don't think there's clear minnesota case law on it, but i'm looking at illinois, the northern district of illinois, oregon, i think hawaii as well. and subsection 75 northern district of illinois, oregon versus rodriguez, 301 oregon appellate 404. shack s-h-a-k-m-a-n versus
democratic corporation of cook county 920 subsection 881. clear and granted they're not minnesota that the invocation of the fifth amendment right is on a question buyer by question basis and the innovation of that is to be determined by the court which makes sense otherwise somebody who didn't want to testify today i'm asserting my fifth amendment rights. >> i agree with that concept, your honor, we cited the court case and there was voir dire process and we know from his counsel that he's going to invoke the fifth amendment about the areas she discussed and there isn't any question that all of the matters that counsel identified and mr. nelson identified are tied intimately to his interactions with mr. floyd that day and in the previous weeks and it ties
him so we're not facing a question like may perhaps in those cases they might be invoking because they don't want to testify. here is a legitimate link in the chain about what he's going to be asked about and quite a few different crimes, not just third degree murder. we even know-- we've talked about the sense of opposing counsel has suggested almost an alternative perpetrator in that sense with the third degree murder, but there's drug charges, counterfeiting, false information and i don't know how we put on mr. hall to testify and ask him one question and then let him leave without having the ability to pursue, as we normally would, in a trial the credibility and the foundation for that testimony in light of all we know. so, i think that this case doesn't raise the kind of questions that may be brought
up in the case the court cited, i can't bring them up now, but the singular question that the court is inquiring about are intimately linked to george floyd and the other areas-- >> you take a look at case law, it's much closer to incriminating behavior like this shakman case, it's really clear that i would not have ruled the way they did, i would have ruled that's a proper invocation of-- >> that's illinois. >> and let's work on we're headed where that. this is what i propose. we're not done with this today. i think we've pretty much established or based on what mr. nelson said, there's really a very small, narrow topic that might be permissible, so what i'm going to do, i'm going to
ask mr. nelson essentially to draft in written question form with the expected answer based on whatever statements were made, on what that would be. that way, mr. hall can meet with his lawyers and talk about would he be willing to answer those. then we can have another hearing outside of the hearing of the jury, walk tloo, number one, if i placed on my review of the examination, question by question basis, if i say it's not a proper invocation, is mr. hall willing to answer, despite your ruling, judge, he's still not going to. he's subject to contempt then, but i think we get too far ahead when we're being-- let's say what are the questions we're going to ask him and walk through outside the hearing of the jury believe it or not i would allow it and find that it's not incriminating and then based on
that, mr. hall can meet with his lawyers and so on. i'm talking by thursday i'd like that list. they can do any indication of cross, same thing, i'm guessing what you would want to cross mr. hall on as far as his credibility and all that, well, it's pretty much up to you, mr. frank, but i think that-- since it might widen the net and might get him clearly into fifth amendment issues. >> i think we need to, if mr. nelson can get you that, you can write up your own list of questions and let's do it outside the hearing of the jury and he has time to talk to his attorneys before we put him on the stand cold and he was to conifer with them one by one. so, and it's a limited-- i'm only allowing for the limited and this isn't a final ruling. this is the only part that i think is possibly not subject
to a fifth amendment claim. tell me what you want to ask, we'll run it by, outside the hearing of the jury on a question by question basis, and court will make a determination and follow-up with mr. hall and based on the court's ruling, are you going to testify and we go from there. so i don't want this to be the last and try and push through a ruling when we need to tread carefully, obviously. fifth amendment right is a broad one and i agree as a link, you have to worry about links to possible prosecution, but at the same time, if everything's linked, then it's a blanket prohibition and that's not the case law. so, with that, everybody's got their homework. let's go with that. all right. >> thank you, your honor. >> for now, do not waste your time on the other stuff, it's that narrow limited area that we're going to talk about, okay? >> five to 9:00 probably start up at 9:15 with the jury. all right.
we're in recess. >> thank you, mr. hall. >> thank you, judge. >> and watching live coverage here on c-span2 on this seventh day of the trial of former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin charged in the death of george floyd. we'll bring you back to the courtroom when they return live. you can watch live on-line at c-span.org, if you miss any proceedings watch the day's testimony again this evening at 8 p.m. eastern time here on c-span2. as they take breaks during the trial throughout the day, we'll take a look back at some of the earlier proceedings. here is some of the testimony from yesterday. >> to training as opposed to physically striking people to gain compliance? >> and are you referencing policy or training? >> training. >> i believe so. >> about 10, 15 years ago, agreed? >> and that was sort of highlighting the evolution as you kind of described it in
your direct examination of policing since you've become a police officer, that's one way it's evolved? >> yes. >> and when something changes per policy, can't wear weighted gloves anymore, for example, that's it, no more, agreed? >> yes, i agree, yes. >> but if the policy-- if training, for example, evolves into a best practice, it doesn't prevent an officer from learning a technique he learned earlier in his career, just may not be the best practice anymore? so, i pause just to-- when you say that they're learning something, but if it's not in alignment with our policy, then that would not be prohibited. if i'm hearing your directly. >> let me try to explain. so, if an officer was trained in a particular handcuffing
technique and then they go to their defensive tatics training and they say this is a better way to handcuff a suspect, it's not a policy change, it's just a best practice change and they can still use the old way they did it? ... >> all right. now, when we are talking about active aggression and active resistance, sometimes those two
things are happening simultaneously, agreed? >> can be, yes. >> now, we were talking then about again graham versus connor case, and how that is incorporated into the minneapolis police department policy. i am showing you exhibit 270 know. it should it should be up in front of you. what we're basically talking about was the united states supreme court decision that outlined the objectively reasonable use of force standard, right? >> yes. >> and graham versus connor is not limited to those three factors that you were read before, right, graham versus
connor and also? >> yes. >> those are three that a kind of listed, but ultimately is not an all inclusive list of considerations for the reasonableness of the use of force, agreed? >> that was my understanding. >> and, in fact, what the policy reads is that the reasonableness of the particular use the force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 2020 vision of hindsight, right? >> guess. >> so we're looking at in the instant and the monk based upon the objective standard, right? >> yes. >> also, the policy also includes that the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that
is necessary in any particular situation, right? >> yes. >> that's because when officers go to situation kind of what we talked about before, what can be initially very minor can grow into something major, a great? >> yes. >> now, shoyu exhibit 219. -- show you. you read a part of five dash 304 was a threatening use the force and de-escalation. i want to talk you a little bit about de-escalation. have you heard the term sometimes you have to escalate to de-escalate? have you ever heard that phrase? >> i have not heard that.
>> in your you talk about or the policy talks about that officers shall consider verbally announcing their intent to use force, including displaying an authorized weapon as a threat of force, right? so sometimes an officer has to take out his gun, say hey, that's the use of force in that instance, right? >> yes. >> and if you don't listen to me i'm going to use force. it's a pretty clear indication that force could be used when you have a gun pointed at you, would you agree? >> yes. >> other things such as chemical irritants or tasers, not limited to just a firearm, right? >> yes. >> sometimes what an officer has to do is command the presence, right? them to take control of the situation. >> yes. >> and sometimes that's not particularly attractive, is it? >> could you -- >> sure. the use of force is not
something that people like to watch generally, right? >> objection. >> sustained. >> would you agree that the use of force is not an attractive notion? >> i would say that use of force is something that most officers would rather not use, yes. >> and you described in your directive how the single greatest way that the minneapolis police department could be judged is based upon how the public perceives it use force, right? >> yes. >> it has a tendency to garner a lot of attention. >> it can. >> so much so that citizens have become more prone to record observed interaction with police, right?
>> yes. >> something that you didn't have to do with back in 1989, right? >> yes. >> so essentially what this policy 5-304 5-304 in terf threatening the use of force, it's contained within the de-escalation concept, right? sometimes you have to display a weapon to gain command so that you can de-escalate, right? >> yes. >> when we are talking about, is it fair to say that pretty much every single one of these use of force policies contained some phrase if reasonable or if practical? there's limitations on the use of force, right? >> yes, there are limitations, yes. >> and its situation by situation, right? >> yes. >> if you go back and look at the language of the graham versus connor and the policy that's contained by minneapolis police department, the use of force has no precise objective
singular rule. it's different in every case? >> yes. >> so, for example, in the de-escalation policy 5-304 b1, de-escalation is advisable when it is safe and feasible? >> yes. >> and sometimes de-escalation again includes the use of force, right? >> use of force can be a de-escalation tactic. >> thinking a good sample of displaying your weapon. i don't have a lot of knowledge in terms of physical force being used to actually de-escalate the situation but threatening use of force or verbally, i am more
familiar with that. >> so again if we were to talk to the use of force or defensive tactics -- >> objection, argumentative. >> overwrote. >> that would be the best source of that? >> objection, argumentative. >> overruled. >> yes. >> but the purpose of de-escalation, agreed, is to attempt to slow down or stabilize the situation so that more time, options and resources become available to the officer? >> yes. >> basically slow down, everybody kind of calm down, let's try to relax, right? >> yes. >> but it's a lot more, the process of de-escalation is not just trying to talk somebody out of doing something. there are actions that are important. there may be reactions that are important, and the de-escalation policy includes some examples of those things, right? >> yes. >> such as placing barriers
between an uncooperative subject and an officer. >> yes. >> sometimes those barriers or another officer, right? >> yes. >> containing a threat, right? i mean that's one of the examples in policy? >> yes. >> by containing a threat that can include physically restraining someone so that they don't upset another person, right? >> yes. >> will or cousin of the pera violent reaction towards them or officers, right? >> yes. >> moving from a position that exposes officers to potential threats to a safer position, right? so kind of retreating in certain circumstances. >> yes. >> reducing exposure to a potential threat using distance covered or concealment, right? so hiding say behind the squad car, right? >> yes. >> avoiding physical confrontation?
exhibit 230, which is the emergency medical response. you would agree the policy requires minneapolis police department request an emergency medical service as soon as practical, right? >> yes. >> if the person comes into contact having an acute medical crisis and in delay in treatment could aggravate the severity of the medical crisis, right? >> yes. >> sometimes officers will call for ems not thinking it's a major issue when suddenly it becomes apparent they can step a request a quicker response from ems right? >> yes. >> that is something an office can do to ensure the medical treatment of the suspect that they have for the person that they are in contact with, right? >> to ensure -- sorry, to ensure -- >> sorry, it's been a long week. to ensure the medical condition
of the suspect, to help with that. >> just. >> right. get ems there as quickly as possible. >> yes. >> now, we didn't talk about the maximal restraint technique. you recently with with the policy surrounding that? >> yes. >> i showed you what has been admitted as exhibit two to five. can you describe what the maximal restraint technique is? >> yes, counselor to the maximal strength technique is often referred to as the hollow. and that is, it's a method of if officers are digging with typically a combative or aggressive person, in order to protect them or property, it's
placing basically attaching a court of the lakes to the waste so the individual does not have free movement of their legs so it is securing them again, usually by their ankles, if you are prone, bringing that up to your waist and securing it. the maximal restraint technique or the hobble, if it is used a supervisor has to respond to the scene. you cannot transport anyone prone in that position due to the risks of breathing. but that is, that would be my understanding of the mrt, the maximal restraint technique. >> so you talked a a little bn terms of the use of force, how officers are kind of reevaluating the use of force from time to time, right? should be a lease, right? so if officers decide to use the
maximal restraint technique, and the decide hey, we know -- a good later decide not to use it, that is kind of adjusting the use of force. >> i would, counselor, with some clarity, i don't know if that, what i mean by that is, if you were to have a person handcuffed and prone under stomach on the ground on pavement and you had to officers, let's say, securing their legs -- two officers, to the back of their ways, you in a way are still imploring, employing what that technique is about anyway. there can be some variances to that, does that make sense?
critical decision-making model, right? you described at the use of force you have to go through this critical decision-making model, , how much force and liqd use? sometimes you have to back off the use of force, agreed? >> yes. >> sometimes you to go forward with use of force, meaning use even more force. >> right. >> and it's this constant reevaluation, agreed? >> yes. >> so when you have officers who make a decision that the facts and circumstances would warrant using the hobble device but then later decide not to employ that device, that is, that critical making model in action, agreed? >> yes. >> and it would be a reduction in the use of force. it may still require supervisors to be unseen policy wise, but it is a reduction in the use of force, agreed? >> counselor, are we talking
specifically the events of may 25? >> in general. >> in general, yes. >> but you would agree ultimately all of the minneapolis police department policies relevant to use the force, emergency medical response, emergency medical treatment, all of these policies are by their very language are situationally dependent, right? they all say if the circumstances allow, if time permits, if it is safe. to have qualifier to them, agreed. >> yes, yes, i would agree w. >> show you exhibit 231.
at the bottom of exhibit 231 is a crisis intervention policy. the second page includes the definition. could you read the entire definition of what a crisis is? >> yes. an event or situation where and individuals safety and health are threatened by behavioral health challenges to include mental illness, develop mental disabilities, substance use or overwhelming stressors. a a crisis can involve and individuals perception or experience of an event or situation as an intolerable difficulty that exceeds the individuals current resources and coping mechanisms, and may include unusual stress in his or her life that renders him or her unable to function as he or she normally would.
the crisis may but not necessarily result in an upward trajectory or intensity culminating in thoughts for ask that were possibly dangerous to himself, herself and/or others. >> all right. so generally speaking, again not relevant to the may 25 of 2020s incident, we we will get there in a minute but when we talk about a general police response, sometimes the police may respond to something and the person they're dealing with is not in a crisis, agreed? >> yes. >> but other people may be proceeding what is happening and it could become a crisis to that person. >> objection, leading. >> rephrase. >> sure. people who observe, would you say that people who observe police interaction with people, especially the more physical or use of force types, that could turn into a crisis for an
observer? >> objection, irrelevant. >> sustained. >> so in terms of the definition of crisis, crisis may involve and individuals perception or experience of an event or situation as an intolerable difficulty that exceeds that individuals current resources and coping mechanisms, right? >> yes. >> that doesn't necessarily mean that you are, the person with whom you are arresting or having contact with is going to be the person who will experience a crisis, agreed? >> objection, irrelevant. >> overruled. >> counselor, respectfully so, you are saying the person who is witnessing a situation with the officers, that situation may cause them to be in crisis?
>> correct. >> could potentially. >> right. and the crisis may but not necessarily result in an upward trajectory or intensity culminating in thoughts or actions or possibly dangerous to him, her or others, right? >> counselor, just come this s a person who is watching this? >> right. >> it could. >> so people are watching something that they appear to believe or they believe is wrong or contrary to police policy that may cause them to get upset and that level of volatility may grow throughout the course of the interaction. >> objection irrelevant. calls for speculation. >> overruled. it's within the scope. >> it could. >> because ultimately part of the training that minneapolis police officers have to go through is how to deal with crowds who observe police interaction, right? >> yes. >> crowds that may be upset with
police interaction, right? >> yes. >> there are classes through the training academy. there are classes through in-service specifically dealing with how to deal with crowd control, right? >> yes. >> and all of this is to revert in part back to that de-escalation process as well, right? >> yes. >> part of it as as a crowd s or becomes more upset, part of it is to try to de-escalate which can involve trying to avoid a physical confrontation, right? >> yes, it could. >> trying to stay safe, concealed and covered, right? >> right. >> not yelling back at somebody, not engaging with them verbally, right? >> yes. >> and sometimes when officer tries to de-escalate the situation and someone is so upset, right, sometimes they don't hit with the officer tells them, , would you agree with th?
>> objection speculation. >> that calls for speculation and it is sustained. >> is it possible generally speaking that someone's own crisis may prevent them from hearing what an officer is telling them? >> it can. >> the objection sustained. the answer will be stricken. >> so you testified that you've watched the body cameras, greg? >> yes. >> -- correct? >> yes. >> on going to show you, i dont
know -- mr. schleicher, this is exhibit 1008 which is the ten-second approximately five-second clip of alexander kings body-worn camera. it's already -- idq a copy of it. >> is it in evidence? >> not yet, no. i'm just telling you. i'm going to show you on your screen a short clip of a video to see if this would be contained in what you have watched and i need to -- you would agree that that appears to be taken from one of the officers body cameras may 25, 2020, at approximately 20:25:33?
>> yes. >> and begin watching it without sound. at this point did you see what appeared to be a reflection in the back of a squad car there? >> i'm sorry, i did not. it just might be the brevity of the video. >> it's unfortunate. if you look at the upper left-hand corner at the bumper of the squad video -- >> could you circle that for him? >> i'm sorry? >> it is silenced. >> forgot. this fancy technology here. did you see the legs of someone
reflecting? >> yes. >> and so you would agree that this appears to be a short clip from one of the officers body-worn cameras on may 25 of 2020? >> yes. >> you had seen these before. you see what appears to be mr. floyd's arm there at the back of a squad car right? >> yes. >> i would offer exhibit 1008. >> any objections? >> no objections. >> 1008 is received. >> if i may publish. [inaudible] >> sorry. do you the voice say we have an ambulance coming? >> yes. >> -- do you hear the voice.
>> we can take that down. now, policy five dash 311, let's. [talking over each other] a little bit about five dash 311 which is the neck restraint policy. counsel, if we could talk for a second. [inaudible conversations] good time to break for 20 minute midafternoon break we'll reconvene around 3:20. thank you.
>> all right. mr. blackwell. >> good morning, your honor. counsel, ladies and gentlemen. the state calls doctor bradford lingenfelter. >> raise your right in. swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to test what you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> have see please.
and before you begin a couple things. if you feel comfortable taking the mask off we would prefer you do that but -- >> share. >> as a doctor i can tell you i that both my shots if that helps. but we would like you to state your full name spelling each of your names. >> sure, doctor bradford lincoln failed, b-r-a-d-f-o-r-d, l-a-n-g-e-n-f-e-l-d. we can just call you dr. langenfeld? >> yes, sir. >> dr. langenfeld, did you provide emergency care to the body come to george floyd after is taken to hennepin county on the eating of may 25? >> i did. [inaudible]
>> just for introduction, are you the position officially pronounced him dead that night? >> that is correct, yes. >> were you one of the physician to try to save his life? >> objection. >> sustained. >> did you administer care to george floyd on may 25, 2020? >> yes. >> what would you trying to do? >> we were trying to resuscitate mr. floyd. >> to save his life? >> correct. >> so why do we learn a a lite bit about your background, dr. langenfeld. where are you currently employed? >> currently i am working at a clinic and hospital up in grand rapids minnesota. it is my primary practice and also working laconia minnesota at ridgeview medical center. >> laconia is in carver county? >> that's quick. >> grand rapids is several hours drive away from here?
>> that's quick. >> why grand rapids? >> i was born there. it's my home town. >> it's also the hometown of judy collins, isn't it? >> it is yes. >> are you licensed in emergency medicine? >> i have a minnesota state medical license and practice emergency medicine. >> would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury , what is emergency medicine as a practice for a doctor? >> it's a very broad practice but primarily involves taking care of patients suffering from critical ailments -- [inaudible] >> sure. >> such as strokes, heart attacks, car accidents, other emergencies such as that but also less emergent conditions, sore throats, urinary tract infections, things like that. >> when will you first license? >> may of 2020.
>> would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury , a little bit about your educational background? >> so i attended medical school at the university of minnesota twin cities and then residency training at hennepin county medical center. >> when did you finish your residency then? >> last summer. >> have you ever had any location to testify in a court before? >> no, i have not. >> this is a first time? >> that's correct. >> let's go through monday, may 25, 2020, last year memorial day. do you recall whether you were working that eating? >> i was, yes. >> where were you? >> i was in emergency department. >> at the hennepin county medical center? >> that's correct. >> what was your position or title? >> i was one of the senior residence. we are involved in direct patient care including both
critical care and overseeing some of the junior residents. >> do you recall what time your shift began and ended? >> it began at about one p.m. that day and ended at approximately 11 p.m. >> and as senior resident what was your role? >> my role is primarily direct patient care. i worked underneath attending physicians as a resident. >> did you also oversee any other residents? >> yes. >> which residents would you have overseen? >> more junior residents earlier in the residency training. >> your honor, the state calls
her yang. >> stand right here. racial right in. you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury the testimony are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> first of all if you could come if you feel comfortable we would appreciate if you would remove their mess so we can hear you are clearly. and then began by stating or folding spelling each of your names. k-e-r y-a-n-g. >> mr. schleicher. >> thank you honor. good morning. >> good marks for how are you employed? >> i employed with the
minneapolis please depart. >> was how long have you been employed by the city of minneapolis. >> i've been with the department for approximately 24 years. >> what is your current position with minneapolis? >> my current position is i am the crisis intervention training chordata for the department. >> and your current rank? >> i hold the rank of sergeant. >> first i like it intelligible a bit about yourself, how old are you? >> i i am, i will be 50 this ye. >> and you indicated she had been employed by mpd for 24 years? >> approximately 24 years yes. >> could you please share with the jury your educational background? >> i received my bachelor in psychology and criminal justice. i received a message degree in psychology and my doctorate in general psychology. >> when did you complete your doctorate? >> i complete that back in 2014.
>> when you start come after you started with mpd did you go to the academy? >> yes, i did. >> described that experience. what you did you start? >> i i started the academy as a cadet in september -- actually september of 1996. i had to take additional college courses goes of the cadet program and from the cadet program i went through the academy. >> after you complete the course work did you enter the field training program? >> yes, i get. >> how long were you in the program. >> i believe approximate five or six months. it's been a long time ago. >> after you complete your field training what we should first assignment? >> i was assigned to, if my memory serves me, probably i was assigned to downtown precinct after i finish my field training. >> as a patrol officer? >> yes as a patrol officer. >> how long did you serve as a
patrol officer before being promoted to sergeant? >> i was a patrol officer for i would say, not including special -- over ten years. >> would you please describe for the jury some of the precincts to which you are assigned and your assignments before promoting to sergeant? >> i was assigned again assigned to downtown precinct. i was also side to -- [inaudible] also assigned to housing patrol, school patrol and six precinct before i came to actually sit precinct when i got promoted i was assigned to fourth precinct at supervisory orientation. i went to robbery for my supervisory orientation and then assigned to downtown as a supervisor before i became the crisis intervention training chordata for the training unit. >> as a patrol officer have you ever been in a situation where it's been necessary for you to use force?
>> yes. >> have you ever arrested a suspect? >> yes. >> had ever arrested a suspect who was reluctant to be arrested? >> yes. >> you've had your handcuff people who were struggling? >> yes. >> and now you are the crisis training coordinator. where are you a site as a crisis courtney? >> i am currently assigned to the -- >> was allocated? >> is located on the north side at what we call the special operations center at 4119 dupont avenue. >> can you please describe your role as the crisis training chordata? >> as the crisis needing -- training courtney on responsible for coordinating with community members and civilians to come teach officers about crisis and crisis de-escalation and at times also train officers.
>> what you mean by crisis? >> crisis could be an any situation is beyond the persons coping mechanism. and what is beyond their control sometimes they don't know what to do and we trained to assist the person to bring them back down to the precrisis level. could you please share with the jury some examples of types of crises? >> crisis could be mental illness related or could be situational. it could be that some regard to crash, for example, and edges so affected by that they don't know what to do. that could be a crisis. that could be an example of a crisis. >> can intoxication be a crisis. >> with yes, intoxication would be a crisis, yes. >> drugs or alcohol. >> yes. >> certain types of anxiety could be a crisis?
>> yes. >> does the minneapolis police department have policy pertaining to persons in crisis? >> yes, it does. >> at a high level could you explain what that policy requires? >> the policy requires it safe and feasible that we shall de-escalate. >> and does the minneapolis police department, i'm assuming as the crisis training coordinator you are aware of any training or tools that it provides law enforcement officers to abide by this policy? >> yes. >> does that include training officers to recognize when persons may be an crisis? >> yes. >> some of the signs of crisis, types of crisis? >> yes. >> there is a specific crisis intervention training course that minneapolis police department sponsors or puts on that at the training center, is a right? >> yes. >> in your role as coordinator you bring the instructors infer that?
>> that is correct. >> have you been through the course yourself? >> i have been through the course, yes, and accepted some some of the courses, yes. >> now exhibit 203 which we won't publish at this time contain some training records and those training records indicate that crisis intervention training was offered in 2016 and also 2018. i would like to talk to you about the larger block, the 2016 block. now first i'd ask you do you recognize the name derek chauvin? >> yes. >> how do you recognize it? >> i recognize the name derek chauvin through training. >> okay. you are familiar with this person? >> no. >> would you recognize them if you saw? >> yes. >> all right. do you see you in the courtroom today? >> he has a mask on. i am assuming is him. >> made the record reflect the witness has identified the
defendant. >> the record also reflect. >> exhibit 203 the training the training records indicate in 2016 the defendant participated in a lengthier course approximately a 40 hour course in crisis intervention training. are you familiar with the type of course, the 40 hour crisis intervention training course? >> yes. >> is that a course you personally participate in as a student? >> that course was delivered to the department to the officers by minnesota cit officers association. >> can you just in general terms explain what that course covers? >> that course covers individual in crisis symptoms and de-escalation strategies that may be used for crisis. its scenario-based training. >> what do you mean by that? >> the trainer brings and professional actors to come in
and to conduct crisis scenarios where there in a crisis and officer has to use come has to use the escalating strategies to bring down to precrisis level or to help them out. >> and so the officers i given an opportunity to practice recognizing what may be signs of persons in crisis and respond appropriate? >> yes. >> i would like to talk to you about related concept are you familiar with the critical decision-making model? >> yes again. >> how are you familiar with that model? >> i attended the critical decision-making model was introduced to us by the police executive research forum. i and along with some my colleagues we attended a training session that was conducted by a representative from the police executive forums, and we adopted that
model to neds use to guide all officers in the decision-making process. >> and is a critical decision-making model, is there an application to crisis intervention? >> yes, it does. >> also an application to use for? >> yes. >> sometimes those decisions will have to be made contemporaneously? >> yes. >> at this time i would like to publish exhibit 276, critical decision-making model. you recognize this document? >> yes, sir. >> this is a critical decision-making model with which you are familiar? >> yes, sir. >> could you please explain based on your familiarity with this graphic, the middle circle? >> the middle circle what you see in the middle circle voice neutrality respect and trust. those are the pillars of procedural justice that was
introduced in the department. >> what is procedural justice? >> procedural justice basically is our action. what we do actions are legitimate and that is what is legitimacy. >> the training center also offers courses in procedural justice as welcome as of right? >> that is correct guess. >> this critical decision-making model is adapted in part from the materials? >> that's correct just. >> now going back to the outer part of the circle, the first step of information gathering, you see that it goes kind of a a wheel that is supposed to represent critical decision-making or thinking come is a right? >> that is correct. >> would you please come we photophobia about this critical thinking decision-making model already but i would like you to discuss how this works in the context of crisis intervention. starting with the first block.
>> information gathering. we believe this model has application not only for crisis but especially for crisis and that is why is part of crisis curriculum. the first circle what you see is information gathering. information gathering is crucial to how what tactics of what decisions will be made and information gathering could be based on dispatch or could be based on the own officers observation. >> observations of what? >> observation of the scene, observation of the person, could be observation of the environment of what is going on. >> some of these observations for example, could be physical observations, the office could look at the person and make some sort of assessment as to whether or not there's behavioral crisis? >> yes. >> listening is that also important? >> listening is important yes. >> any of information and officer would generally assess for taken when considering whether person is in crisis?
>> even listening, listening is key. even touch, for example. if officer has hands-on person you can sometime since tensing up and you can tell it may be the person in crisis or not. >> going to the next step taking that information and potential assessing it, what's the threat risk assessment block? >> risk is the possibility something that may happen, and threat in the sense is the danger and whether that danger will cause harm or not. >> with risk you say it's the potential, right? it doesn't necessarily mean that the person is being threatened or themselves is threatened, is that right? >> that is correct yes, sir. >> just been a possibility. many could present some sort, everybody present some sort of risk? >> yes. >> it's up to the officer and information gathering to determine whether that risk is
small, larger elevates to a threat? >> objection. >> sustained. >> apologize, your honor. how does the officer didn't assess whether or not a a thr, i'm sorry, risk is small, large or could develop into a threat? >> that is up to the officers and the circumstances, information they have at that time. >> the next step that after the threat risk assessment authority to act. could you please describe how that step is taken in the context of crisis intervention? >> the authority to act is based on all policy, also based on statute and case law for individual in crisis. also some of the authority we have in handling people in crisis. >> some of those policies and the authority could include the use of force policy? >> yes. >> the de-escalation policy? >> yes. >> and the crisis intervention
policy? >> yes, sir. >> the next step then goals and actions please describe the thinking model in terms of crisis intervention regarding goals and actions. >> goals and actions is also contingent on -- really the ultimate goals and action summit in crisis is to see if the person needs help and what kind of help does a person need to go to the hospital or does, can person be turned over to somebody that has the authority to watch over that person. so it's really for someone in crisis it's to see if that person needs help. >> and then the next block in terms of crisis intervention, review and reassess. could you please describe how that works in this scenario? >> review and reassess as information becomes available, we continuously reviewed and reassess the situation to see if our technique on de-escalation or other technique is working.
if it is not working to adjust technique and strategies. >> could you also didn't go backwards and adjust your goals and action? >> yes, we can. >> so, for example, initially the goal is to arrest someone after taking information, if you determine the person needed medical attention, could you act on that? >> yes. >> what would the action be if the person was need of medical attention? >> that would be the immediate goal for us, if someone is in need of medical attention than we give them medical attention. >> that would also relate to the backwards to the authority to act come is a right? >> yes. >> looking at the policy and there's a duty to provide medical attention, right? >> yes. >> now, , how is this critical decision-making model imparted to minneapolis police officers in the training program?
>> we believe in the application of this critical decision-making models, so i introduced this model with the approval of course to the department in 2018. >> you have been in a situation where you had to use force before. you were in the for a long time. do you have an assessment as to whether or not this model is useful in the field? >> i believe it's useful. that is why we introduced this model and it was -- [inaudible] >> and is it practical? >> it really is practical. >> can you explain how so? i mean some of the situations involving police officers occur fairly quickly come is a right? >> that is to. >> is it possible for police officer to use this critical thinking model in the field when actions -- i'm sorry, when events are unfolding quickly? >> it is possible.
this would most belike, almost like memory. when we talk about fast evolving situations i know they do exist, they do happen but a lot of the time converse of that is a lot of the time we have the time to slow things down, to reevaluate come reassess and we go through this model. >> do you provide this trend because you believe it works? >> i provide this trend because i do believe it works come yes. >> thank you. i have no further questions.
>> i have a few follow-up questions so your will with minneapolis police department is currently training officers involved in crisis intervention techniques? >> that's correct. >> as well as the critical decision-making model? >> that's correct. >> and you assisted the minneapolis police department in developing its policies and procedures surrounding both the crisis intervention techniques as well as critical decision-making policies, right? >> yes, sir. >> you said you introduced these policies with the approval from the chief or the higher ups, right? >> it has to be approved before
we can do this training, yes. >> and these trainings then ultimately helped form some policies of the minneapolis police department? >> yes, but not the critical decision-making model, it's not in the policy. at the crisis intervention technique is in the policy? >> crisis intervention is in the policy, yes. >> and you have a long career as a police officer both in the field and also in the training and investigation unit. you have your own personal experiences in dealing with people out on the street, right? >> that's correct yes, sir. >> are the situations in your own experience where you have to use force on someone and other people observing the use of force don't like what you are doing? >> yes, sir. >> and, in fact, i believe you would describe sometimes the public doesn't understand that police actions can look really bad? >> that is correct, yes, sir. >> but they still may be lawful
even if they look bad, right? >> yes, sir. >> and part of the whole goal of the crisis intervention technique or policies used to not only deal with the suspect also of the people who may be watching, correct? >> that is correct, yes, sir. >> so in situations where citizens or bystanders start to congregate and watch what police are doing, you would agree that that could potentially become a crisis for those observers. >> potentially, yes. >> and you train officers in how to deal with those situations, right? >> that's correct, yes, sir. >> when you look at the critical decision-making model, not policy, but with a look at the critical decision-making model, that is what you would describe as a rapid, very dynamic model, right? >> yes, sir. >> it's not just focusing on one particular thing. it is assessing many, many
things that are happening in the context of an arrest, right? >> yes, sir. >> some of those things could be the interactions that you are having with citizen observers, right? >> yes. >> and the training that you provide, there are materials that the department maintains, correct? >> that's correct. >> so i'm going to ask, just to display to the witness -- what has been marked as exhibit 122. did you recognize this to be training materials prepared by the minneapolis police department crisis intervention team? >> yes, sir. >> all right. and so i am just going to go --
so i'm going to have you just look at this. this is the material and the training materials at the crisis intervention team present to the officers in the 40 hour training, right? >> no, sir. >> this is a training that you received? >> this is the training that i created. >> so this is something that you created to train minneapolis police officers? >> yes. >> and this is a more recent model than the 2018 model? >> this this is a program the created to target the recruit and cadet academies. >> yes. >> so this is separate what chauvin and some of the other officers expert but this is generally applicable to all police officers are trained in crisis intervention as well as the escalation? >> yes, sir. >> and officers are trained to look for potential signs of aggression from suspects or
crowd observers, right? >> yes, sir. >> what are some of the potential signs of aggression that officers are trained to watch for? >> based on this document that you fear it could be standing tall, read in the face, raised voice, rapid breathing, also tensing, agitations, -- [inaudible] >> so an officer who is making an arrest of a suspect and there are bystanders watching, and growing in their intensity, these are the types of behaviors that offers are specifically trained to watch for from either the suspect or observers, right? >> yes. >> your honor, sidebar. [inaudible conversations]
mr. yang, as a part of -- excuse me, sergeant yang, as a part of your role in the minneapolis police department, do you train both cadets, recruits as well as veteran officers? >> yes, i do. >> okay. and you, can you describe the difference between the training that a cadet would receive versus a veteran officer? >> something like this would be given to the recruits and officers that have gone through the officers' association training on crisis deescalation. we will give them a progression training. we will introduce other topics, other topics like autism to them and go through different types of crisis training. so it's a little bit different. it's different from what the recruits and the regular officer look at. >> now, the information that the the presented to recruits versus
veteran officers, is it generally the same type, broad categories of information? >> yeah, similar. we want to be consistent. similar, yes. >> right. and so the information that a veteran officer would receive in a 40-hour training would be includes arive of what to look -- inclusive of what to look for in terms of crisis, would with it not? >> yes. >> right. you would train officers on the policy about crisis intervention, correct? >> yes. >> you would train them about what to look for when a person is in crisis, right in. >> yes. are you talking about recruit training or the veteran officer? >> the veteran officers. >> the veteran officers -- are you referring to the 40-hour training? >> yes. >> i have not done the 40-hour training for the veteran officer -- [inaudible] >> okay. so you don't know any
information that the veteran training officer, the veteran officers would receive. >> i do know some of it, but not the entire curriculum. >> okay. you've trained veteran officers yourself. >> i do, but not in the 40-hour week. >> understood. but in the refresher type -- >> refresher type course, yes. >> right. and in the refresher type course, do you discuss with officers the policy of crisis intervention? >> yes. >> do you discuss with officers the signs to look for both in terms of suspects as well as individuals observing? >> especially the suspects. >> especially the suspects. >> yes. >> but ultimately, you would agree that that training also includes the critical decision making model, right? >> yes. >> and the critical decision making model is not limited to or focused on simply the suspect, correct? >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible]
>> i'm sorry? >> -- answering the objection is overruled, so you can answer. >> okay. could you repeat that, sir? >> sure. i need to remember my question. [laughter] the critical decision making policy that you train veteran officers on would be inclusive of people other than just the suspect, is that correct? >> there is no policy on the critical decision making model, only on the crisis policy. >> the critical decision making model, i keep calling it a policy. that's just hi fault. the critical decision making model is not limited to interpreting or responding to the suspect exclusively, is it? >> that's correct. >> an officer is trained in the critical decision making model to go out and review the entirety of the situation, the totality of the circumstances, correct? >> that's correct, sir.
>> and the totality of the circumstances is more than just how you interact with the subject with whom you are arresting, right? >> that's correct. >> that would include citizen bystanders, right? >> correct. >> what to do when a citizen bystander starts filming you. >> that's correct, yes, sir. >> how to try to interpret whether citizens pose a threat or a risk, right? >> right. >> how to -- you would consider your own interactions also with the suspect themselves, correct? >> that's correct. >> and you describe this critical decision making model as being a very dynamic, ever-changing thing based upon information that comes to the officer in realtime, right? >> that's correct. yes, sir. >> and so an officer awe may consider -- who has used force may move backwards in the policy
but may have to jump somewhere else in the policy because new information comes. or the model. >> yes, sir. >> and so it is a constantly involving process where an officer is entrusted to make decisions based on all of the information that he or she perceives, correct? >> that's correct. yes, sir. >> right. and that also would include training, right? their training. >> yes, sir. >> and other things that may not be apparent to a citizen. >> yes, sir. >> tactical decision making, for example. >> yes, sir. >> knowing that medical help was on the way, right? >> yes, sir. >> making decisions about officer safety, right? >> yes, sir. >> so all of these thing -- it's not just one small thing that you're focused only on the subject that you're arresting. you're taking in a lot of
information and processing it all kind of simultaneously through this critical decision making model, agreed? >> that's agreed. yes, sir. >> all right. and so in terms of -- and i'll take this down for now, but in terms of the information that you advise or talk to officers, veteran officers about, how to recognize the signs of someone in crisis, right? >> yes, sir. >> and the minneapolis police department policy on crisis intervention has a pretty specific definition of what do you wants a crisis, right? >> yes, sir. -- what do you wants a crisis. >> yes, sir. >> it's not limited to someone who may have a mental health problem, right in. >> yes, sir. >> it could include people who are using controlled substances? >> yes, sir. >> it could include people who are simply experiencing some
event that is overwhelming them, right? >> yes, sir. >> and that may be losing a job or getting a divorce, but it could be what that person is observing at the time, agreed? >> yes, sir. >> and so the crisis intervention policy actually defines crisis as having a trajectory, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and that that trajectory can increase in its severity over time. >> yes, sir. >> and that's why it becomes important for an officer to create taoism and distance, right -- time and distance, right in. >> yes, sir. >> and creating time and distance for an officer is an important part of the deescalation process, is it not? >> yes, sir. >> and would you agree that you train police officers that as that intensity of crisis
increases, the risk or threat to the officer grows greater? >> i don't believe i train them specifically like that. because intensity -- my training is as the intensity increases and you have the distance and, like you said, the time, you try to bring it down, not increase the intensity of it. >> what i'm talking about is not the officer trying to increase the intensity of it. my question is this is this: ase person is in crisis and the intensity of their own personal crisis grows, you train officers that as they kind of get more intense, the risks to the officer or others is greater. >> yes, sir. >> and, in fact, officers are trained to respond to that in a variety of ways, right?
>> yes, sir. >> some of the, some of the techniques that minneapolis police department trains both veterans and recruits would be to have a confidence about them, right? >> confidence about them? >> right. >> yes, sir. >> an officer should try to appear confident in his or her actions. >> yes, sir. >> they should also try to stay calm, right? >> yes, sir. >> they should try to maintain space, right? >> yes. >> they should speak slowly and softly. >> yes, sir. >> they should avoid staring or eye contact. >> yes, sir. >> and ultimately, when a police officer is dealing with any
situation, they could be dealing with any number of people who are in crisis, right? >> yes, sir. >> right? the subject, the arrestee may be in crisis, right? >> yes, sir. >> people who are watching may be in crisis? >> yes, sir. >> another officer could be in crisis? >> yes, sir. >> all right. and an officer has to take all of that in and do this assessment and make a determination as to what his or her next steps would be, right? >> yes, sir. >> and the observations of the officer in that situation, i think you've described on direct examination, you've described that an officer will also take into and apply to the critical decision making model his own sensory, his or her own sensory perception. >> yes, sir.
>> so the touch of having a feeling a suspect be tense, right? >> yes, sir. >> or loose, right? >> yes, sir. >> what they may hear comes into play. >> yes, sir. >> so if they hear people threatening them or potentially threatening violence, that goes into that critical decision making model as well. >> yes, sir. >> and often times the scene of an a arrested individual is very tense, right? >> yes, sir. >> i have no further questions. >> any redirect? [background sounds]
>> we could publish 276 again, please? [inaudible] thank you. so i'm displaying again the critical decision making model that you've been testifying about. and your direct testimony was using this in terms of assessing a person in crisis for the purposes of determining whether or not they needed medical intervention, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> now, in discussing this and, i guess, relating it to broader some of the force concepts that defense counsel was questioning about, again, all of these things must be taken into account when deciding the next step the, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and the officer always has to keep in mind their authority to
act. that's one of the parts of the model, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> now, defense counsel asked you if the officer should just focus on one small thing. and i would like you to make some sort of comment on differentiating between a small thing and a big thing, because you would agree that something that is a big thing would probably be more important than a small thing, right? >> it depends on what the big thing is and what a small thing is. >> well, for example, if we're looking at assessing somebody's medical condition for the purpose of rendering emergency aid, would that be a big thing or a small thing? >> that would be a big thing. >> if then that is contrasted with, say, a 17-year-old filming you with a camera, would that be a big thing, the filming, or a small thing? >> the filming would be a small thing. >> and so then if you're taking
all of the situations, all the circumstances into account, you have a big thing and you have a small thing, you're again looking at your authority to act, and that's policy, right? >> yes, sir. >> and policy would include the policy governing the use of force and that it must be reasonable, correct? >> yes. >> and it would also include or authority to act the duty to render medical aid, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> as the policy is written, correct? >> yes, sir. >> which includes not only contacting the ambulance, but performing emergency aid like chest compressions or cpr. >> yes, sir. >>ing nothing further. >> [inaudible] >> sergeant yang, in terms of the critical decision making model, again, you're analyzing all of these things -- medical
aid, threats from citizens or observers, whether people are recording, what you're seeing, what you're feeling. it all is premised on whether it is safe and feasible to do something, correct? >> yes, sir. >> nothing further. >> any other -- >> no, your honor. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, your honor. >> is that your water, sir? >> [inaudible] >> oh, okay. all right. next within, please -- next witness, please. >> thank you, your honor. your honor, the state called
johnny crystal? >> do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> yes, your honor. [inaudible conversations] >> you anticipated what i was going to ask you to do. if we could have you state your full name. >> johnny mercil. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, your honor. sir, how are you employed? >> with the city of minneapolis police department from. >> what do you do for the city of minneapolis? >> i'm currently on medical leave, but i'm a lieutenant with the minneapolis police department. >> how long have you been with mpd? >> since 1996. >> i'd like you to tell the jury a little bit about yourself first. could you share your educational background? >> yes, sir. i got a four-year degree from the university of north dakota
in criminal justice studies. >> what year? >> i graduated in '99 5. '95. >> and after you graduated from the university, did you get a job in law enforcement right away, or did you go elsewhere? >> no, sir. i got hired from the minneapolis police department in 1996 and joined the minneapolis police academy. >> describe your academy if experience. >> i was a cadet, so we did a combination of the police academy along with college courses to qualify for minnesota -- [inaudible] >> did you take and pass the post test? >> yes, sir. >> licensed peace officer? >> [inaudible] >> so we don't talk over each other. >> yes, your honor. yes, sir. >> after you completed your coursework in the academy, did you go into a field training program in. >> yes, sir. >> how long were you in that program? >> i believe it was about four months at that time. >> okay. and then you received your first assignment as a police officer, is that right?
>> yes, sir. >> can you please tell the jury what your first assignment was? where were you and what was your duties? >> i was a patrol officer assigned to the 3rd precinct which is southeast minneapolis. duties were patrolling the streets, answering 911 calls. >> and how long did you serve as a patrol officer in the 3rd precinct? >> initially, for a couple of years, and then the i went to the community response team which is a plain-clothes unit. >> it's also referred to, i've heard it call the crt? >> yes, sir. cert team. >> what does that do? >> it responds to the local community's concerns of all times, prostitution, drug dealing, gang activity. >> how long were you with the crt team? >> i did that for about three years. >> and then service what was your assignment afterwards? >> [inaudible] and that was tactically downtown unit at the time. >> what did the mounted patrol
unit do? >> patrol on horseback, mainly crowd control for busy times in minneapolis. we focused on bar closings in downtown minneapolis. >> how long did you do that? >> full time for about a year and a half, then i went to patrol in downtown middle watch precinct. >> okay. how long were you in the downtown middle watch side? >> downtown middle watch until 2006, and then i got promoted to sergeant. >> in order to be promoted for sergeant, did you take an exam and pass it? >> yes, sir. it's a civil servants' exam along with an assessment center. >> and after you were selected as sergeant, you received your first assignment? >> yes, sir. >> what was that? >> went to the robbery unit in downtown near city hall. and then from there i went to the juvenile unit, and then i eventually ended up back downtown on patrol as a supervisor. >> okay.
and how long did that take, what year are we up to now? >> oh, i think we're at about 2007, 2008. >> and after that? >> i was there for a couple of years. i ended up going back to mounted patrol full time as a sergeant in charge of the unit. that went through 2009. i went back to the streets for about a year and a half, and then i went to the minneapolis police department's gang enforcement team as a sergeant. and then we, from there i investigated gang crimes, gun crimes. and then after that assignment i ended up on the north side on patrol for about a year, year and a half, and then i went back downtown as a sergeant on the community response team, the crt team downtown. and then in 2017 i took the exam for lieutenant and passed and was a lieutenant in 2017. >> and where were you assigned as a lieutenant? >> after i got promoted, i was transferred to the training division in charge of use of
force. >> i'd like you to talk to the jury a little bit about your own background in the use of force. you're familiar with the minneapolis police department policy regarding use of force? >> yes, sir. trained for several years for that. >> that was a part of your academy training? >> partially. you get to be familiar with the use of force at the academy. >> and then after you left the academy, did you have to take refresher courses which would have included use of force training every year? >> yes, sir. >> in order to maintain your post license. >> that's correct, sir. >> have you had training beyond that, beyond what was presented at the academy and your yearly certification? >> yes, sir. >> could you please describe it? >> yes. i became a part-time use of force instructor in about 2010, and i maintained that part-time status as a use of force instructor up until i was
promoted to lieutenant where i went to the training unit full time. >> what did you have to do to become qualified to be a use of force instructor? >> went through different courses designed to train us up on use of force. i also started training brazilian jiu-jitsu for the department as part of our ground defense initiative, several other classes and different academies. >> and i'd like to maybe qualify a few terms, if we may. we've talked about use of force and use of force training. we also hear the term defensive tactics. can you differentiate between the two? >> i think they're interchangeable. i think use of force is probably the more appropriate term, but i think defensive tactics has been more of a term that's been used longer so people tend to refer to use of force as defensive tactic instructors. >> would a defensive tactics, in terms of defensive tactics
instruction, include more hands-on type instruction? you mentioned brazilian jewish jiu-jitsu, for example. >> yes, sir. >> were you interested in brazilian jiu-jitsu before becoming a police officer? how did that go? >> no, sir. i was in martial arts through college, and then i got interested in it from some of the other use of force instructors kind of recruited me to do that and really fell in love with the art form and really what its implications and uses are for law enforcement specifically. >> will you please just provide a very high-level overview of what brazilian jiu-jitsu is? some of the principles? >> yes, sir. it's a form of martial arts that really focuses on leverage and body control, de-emphasizes strikes. true brazilian jiu-jitsu there's no punching or kicking, it's using your body weight. kind of like wrestling. joint lock manipulation, neck
restraints, things that, you know, pain compliance as well as physical body controlling to get people to comply. >> so you use that phrase pain compliance. what, what is that? >> pain compliance is using a technique that causes a person you're using it against to have pain so they comply to your, whatever it is you're asking them to do. >> so if we're using an example maybe from childhood, you're familiar with the game mercy? >> yes, sir. >> okay. where you lock fingers, twist down and somebody -- is it similar to that? >> yes, sir. >> all right. although brazilian jiu-jitsu is not the only defensive tactic that officers at mpd are trained on, is it? >> no, sir. >> it's just one of a variety of
different tools that can be in place to deploy force, is that right? >> that's correct. >> for the purpose of enforcing a law, correct? >> that's correct. >> then as a use of force instructor after you became certified, did you have to become knowledgeable if all of the -- in all of the relevant policies and procedures, the 5-300 series? >> yes, sir. >> as well as state law governing the use of force which is largely integrated into minneapolis departmental policies, is that right in. >> yes, sir. >> and you indicated that you were the lieutenant, you were a lieutenant over in the training center, is that right? >> training division, sir. >> training division. please describe your role then as a lieutenant in the training division. >> yes, sir. i was in charge of use of force. i was also in charge of our patrol officer section of training as well as the police range, and i was in charge of all of our continuing education to make sure that our officers
are fulfilling their postman kates to maintain their license to be a police officer. >> and as part of that, to make sure you're properly reporting to the post board, you keep records, sign-in sheets of particular officers having completed training, right? >> that's correct. >> and those training hours are collected and reported into the work force director program? >> yes, sir. >> so you have an accurate record of who has been trained in what, is that right in. >> yes, sir. >> and is it -- when you're the lieutenant of the training division in use of force, are you coordinating preservice and in-service training? >> yes, sir. the preservice side would be use of force, the range and patrol operations. the in-service side is what we consider to be the post mandate, we have to keep up with that. >> as a lieutenant, you're in charge of, you know, you're in a
position of rank over the sergeants, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and those are usually the level, maybe the trainers would largely be at the sergeant level, is that right? >> mainly officers with some sergeants overseeing. >> as the lieutenant and the person in charge of this training, are you familiar with the curriculum that is imparted upon both preservice and in-service trainings? >> yes, sir. >> you helped develop the curriculum. >> yes, sir. >> and you approved the curriculum. >> yes, sir. >> the curriculum could include, well, does include a general with booklet that's put together by the defensive tactics instructors, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and that book leapt contains the general -- booklet contains the general concepts for use of force that are imparted on preservice trainees and in-service trainees, is that right? >> that's correct. >> if i could show exhibit 126 just to the witness?
right. showing you it's been marked for identifies as exhibit 126 -- identification, it's labeled minneapolis police department use of force manual academics and techniques produced by the mpd defensive tactics team. are you familiar with this document and predecessor documents? >> yes, sir. >> does this document contain sort of the general curriculum and knowledge that's imparted upon mpd preservice and in-service trainees? >> yes, sir. >> so offering 126. >> no objection. >> 126 is received. >> and we won't publish that at this point. and you also participate in and i approve various classroom powerpoint training sessions that are imparted upon both preservice and in-service trainees. >> yes, sirment -- yes, sir. >> and at this time as to the
witness, i would like to show what's been marked for identification as exhibit 119. exhibit 119 is a slide deck that's labeled 2018 defensive tactics in-service. is that right? >> yes, sir. >> if you can show the witness the second page. do you see your name on the slide deck listed at the top of the instructors? >> yes, sir. >> you familiar with the contents of this particular powerpoint presentation or slide deck? >> yes, sir. >> did you help create it? >> yes, sir. >> and you approved its use during the training, is that right in. >> that's correct. >> and it's listed as fall of 2018, so this is what would have been provided for in-service training, so it experienced performing officers during this 2018 session, correct?
>> that's correct. >> and is the training that's provided, you have quite a few minneapolis police officers who have to go through the training, right? >> yes, sir. >> so they're not all taking it at the same time. >> that's correct. >> but if someone is, has completed the fall of 2018 in-service defense thive tactics trainings, does that mean they saw this slide deck? >> yes, sir. >> i'll offer exhibit 119. >> no objection. >> 119 is received. >> then we talked about training records as well and sign-in sheets, so i'd like to show the witness exhibit 124. exhibit 124 is labeled 2018 annual in-service training program, group b, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and i see your name at the top as one of the instructors, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and this is a sign-in sheet
that would show different officers who would sign in having taken the training? >> that's correct. >> turn to page 2. do you see the name derek chauvin on this training roster? >> yes, sir. >> you familiar with that name, derek chauvin? >> yes, sir. >> chauvin, i'm sorry. derek chauvin. do you, would you recognize mr. chauvin if you saw him in the courtroom today? >> yes, sir. >> do you see him today? >> i do, sir. >> would you please point to him and describe what he's wearing? >> yes, sir. he's got a dark blue tie, light blue shirt and a gray jacket. >> may the record reflect the witness has identified the defendant. >> [inaudible] >> go back to page 1. and at this time, i will offer
exhibit 124. >> [inaudible] >> 124 is received. >> permission to publish 124. if you could highlight the instructor block and title. all right. again, you see that this is the 2018, this training was provided on october 1, 2018, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and you are listed as one of the trainers, correct? >> that's correct. >> and if you could go to page 2. and highlight, please. and there you can see the training was attended by the defendant, is that correct? >> yes, sir.
>> how many times do you think you've provided training like what we saw in the exhibit to various officers over the years? >> hundreds of times, sir. >> and did, is this a slide deck that you identified as being the 2018 version really consistent with prior versions of the use of force training you've provided? >> the documentation, sir? >> yes. >> yes. >> so when you do use of force training, there are generally two components, right? there's a classroom component, and then there would be more of the tactical component, practical exercises, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and what we saw on the exhibit was the classroom component. >> i believe so. >> okay. well, what i'd like to do now is publish exhibit 119.
and just like you've done hundreds of times before, i'm going to have you explain some of the selected slides to the jury, all right? >> yes, sir. >> please turn to page 2. 119. and is, again, you can see your name listed on this in-service training as one of the instructors, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and turn to page 4. page 4 of the slide deck contains a policy reference, is that right? >> yes, sir, it does. >> and you testified that you're familiar with the policy and the use of force policies. one of the objectives is training is to impart the policies, teach those policies to the attending officers. >> yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> and so this is from the minnesota -- i'm, the
minneapolis policy manual 5-301. could you please describe to the jury what this slide is intended to convey? >> yes, sir. there's, looks like there's three bullet points. first one is sanctity of life and the protection of the public. that is the cornerstone of our use of force policy, is the sanctity of life and the protection of the public. also clear and consistent force policies. we like our policies to be easily understood. and then the use of force standard to fall under the fourth amendment reasonableness standard. >> since we're talking about use of force, i'd like to turn the page 7 of the exhibit. 119. when we talk about use of force, explain to the jury what is force. >> it's listed on this slide here. intentional police contact involving any weapon, substance, vehicle, equipment, tool, device or animal that inflicts pain or
injury to another, physical strikes to the body, physical contact to the body that inflicts pain or injury while restraint or circumstance likely to produce injury. >> so you train officers that restraint is a form of force, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and when applying force or applying restraint, the restraints have to be reasonable, correct? >> correct. >> and it has to be reasonable at the time it starts and the time it stops? >> correct. >> you're familiar with the concept of proportionality. >> yes, sir. >> if you could turn to the exhibit page 8. can you discuss proportionality to trainees, you use this exhibit, is that right this. >> yes, sir. >> and in general, without using the slide for a moment, just
explain to the jury as you would a group of trainees what is proportional force? >> well, you want to use the least amount of force necessary to meet your objectives, to control. and if those lower use of force do not work, would not work, you can increase your level of force against that person. >> and if they do not work, would not work or unsafe to try it, maybe you've used that phrase a time or two. >> yes, sir. >> is that a phrase you've used in pretty much every training that you've given on use of force? >> when there's a powerpoint of use of force, we discuss proportionality regularly. >> okay. and you said you want to use the least amount of force that's necessary? >> yes, sir. >> why is that? >> because if you can use the least amount, a lower level of force to meet your objectives, it's safer and better for everybody involved. >> and when we talk about
proportionality, proportional to what? >> i'd say the level of resistance you're getting. >> and the level of resistance would be dependent upon who? >> the subject that you're using force upon. >> the specific subject. >> yes, sir. >> all right. at this time i'll ask to publish exhibit 110. this is an item that's already been received into evidence. do you recognize exhibit 110? >> yes, sir. >> what is that? >> it's technically called the defense and control response training guide, but a lot of people refer to this as the use of force continuum. >> okay. and as we were discussing the concept of proportionality, you talked about the subject's behavior, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> subject behavior's over here on the left-hand side, correct? >> that's correct. >> and the subject behavior can vary from, i guess, nothing to
passive resistance all the way to active aggression, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and then in terms of proportionality, there's various tools that are available to a law enforcement officer based on the subject's behavior, correct? >> that is correct. >> and some of these tools, if we can just take an example with active aggression, one response could be what? >> up to and including deadly force. >> but then for lower levels of subjecting activity such as passive resistance, right? that could include things like presence and verbalization. >> that's correct. >> and is this something that you use with law enforcement officers you train to graphically represent the concept of proportionality? >> i'm not sure if we have used this specific proportionality course, but we have used this in the past to describe levels of resistance increase, officers'
response also increases. >> and similarly, as levels of resistance decrease, what should the officer do? >> he should deescalate use of force as well. >> and that's actually listed on this response and control guide, isn't it? >> correct. >> if you would clear that, your honor. and you'd indicated that you train offices that they should -- officers that they should use the least amount of force that is available or that's reasonable under the circumstances, is that right? >> to meet the objectives, yes. >> and explain that. >> so you want to use the least amount of force to try to control somebody. might be a low-level force, and if you're trying to get them in handcuffs and they're fighting, you want to use the lowest level of force possible in order to meet those objectives. >> and lower levels of force, fair to say when you're using
force, people can get hurt. >> yes, sir. >> the subject can get hurt, the officer can get hurt. >> yes, sir. >> is that one of the reasons why it's better to use a lesser amount of force? >> yes, sir. >> and another reason is that it's required, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> if you could go back to exhibit 119 and publish page 12? and you train this to officers, back to your training materials, is that right? >> yes. >> the minnesota statutes provide integrated mpd policy the concept of minimum restraints, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and i'd ask you if you could please highlight the first section. i'm sorry, the second section. all right. what is the policy and the statute provide regarding the amount of restraints that can be
used on an arrested subject? >> the first line talks about no more strength than necessary for the arrest and detention. >> what does that mean in -- mean? >> it means the minimum amount of force that you need to accomplish the objective of arresting a detainee. [inaudible] >> now, you're familiar with the circumstances that bring you here today, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and i need to show you a photo that's been is received into evidence as exhibit 17. i'd like to publish that. all right. do you see exhibit 17 and you
see the defendant on top of a subject that you know to be george floyd, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> is this a use of force? >> yes, sir. >> if you could take that down, please. i want you to discuss in terms of using force and using it safely, what you teach your trainees about sort of frailty of the human body. it's important to be careful with people, is that right? >> oh, yes. very, very important to be careful. >> is there some parts of the body that are more prone to injury than others, correct? >> that's correct. >> you train on that, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> if we could display exhibit 119, page 49. now, this is from strength training, is that right?
>> that's correct. >> but is it generally helpful in describing what some of the more sensitive parts of the human body are as you train minneapolis police officers? >> related to strikes? yes. >> could it be related to other types of restraint as well? >> i think you could stretch that some. i don't exactly -- what's the question exactly again? i'm sorry. >> is it fair to say that the areas marked in red, the red zones, are more prone to injury than other parts of the body that could be serious? >> yes. >> for example, the neck. >> yes. >> and the head. >> correct. >> and the sternum of the chest, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and this wouldn't just pertain to strikes, it could also pertain to pressure, couldn't it? >> uh, yes. >> is that something you probably knew before you even did any use of force training? >> yes, sir.
>> now, i'd like you to then discuss with the jury the concept of neck restraints. and if we could publish page 52 of the exhibit. and looking at the time period that you were doing this training, neck restraints were authorized by mpd policy, correct? >> yes, sir. >> can you please describe the training that you provided to minneapolis police officers regarding the use of neck restraints? >> yes, sir. we go over the techniques, definitions of neck restraints, and we'd go through different reps of the neck restraint to get the officers comfortable in doing it. >> could you just give the jury an overview of what a neck restraint is? >> yes, sir. so neck restraint is constricting the sides of a person's neck, and they refer to it as a vascular neck restraint.
so you're slowing the blood flow to and from the brain with the intent to gain control of a subject. >> and there are two different types of neck restraints in the mpd policy, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and those are what? >> the two levels are conscious neck restraint, so that means you grab somebody up and they're still conscious and you can gain compliance with many people with that. and then there's unconscious, and that's applying pressure until the person, when they're noncompliant, they can become unconscious and, therefore, compliant. >> how does one actually apply a neck restraint? >> we teach a couple of different techniques, but the basic idea is you use your elbow as a landmark, and you place your arm across, so your bicep would be on one side of the neck, and your arm, forearm would be on the other side of the neck. and then there's a couple of different hand placements, but you apply pressure on both sides
of the neck to gain compliance. >> and you were demonstrating, were you using -- you were using your arm to do that. >> that is correct. >> and it could also be done with the leg? >> it can be done with the leg. >> does mpd train how to do it with the leg? >> we may show the younger officers in the acad what that likes like, but we don't train. smarts my knowledge, we never have. >> how would a trained neck restraint work? i'm sorry, how would a trained leg restraint work? >> people of who have watched mma, they call it the triangle choke. i use that term choke loosely, that's just what it's called. but that that's when you place your leg over somebody's back and you trap their arm so the person ends up having one arm in, and their arm causes pressure on one side, and the leg causes pressure on the second, and you can actually render somebody unconscious if you hold that long enough.
>> what part of the leg? >> usually it's the inner thigh. >> inner thigh. so in this scenario, using a leg to do a neck restraint would the knee sort of replace the elbow in terms of replacement? how would you describe it? >> your thigh would be across the side of minute's neck, your leg across the back, and you protect the airway really with the space that's created with their arm being pinned in there. >> if you could please display the next page, page 53. use of neck restraints, can you describe -- using those concepts of proportionality when it's authorized to use a neck restraint, the two different varieties. >> yes, sirment on subjects who are actively aggressive, which means assaultive, they're actively resisting and other techniques haven't worked, you can use them.
and then you can't use against subjects who are passively resistant. >> and if you could go to the next slide, page 54. and after a neck restraint is applied, there are certain guidelines that you train that have to be followed, is that right? >> that's correct. >> for the care of the individual upon whom the neck restraint was applied. >> yes, sir. >> and if we could publish exhibit 110 again and bringing this specific topic back to the concept of proportionty -- could you enlarge this? do you have one of those stylus es up there? >> yes, i do. >> you can touch the screen and make a mark here. unconscious neck restraint.
an unconscious neck restraint is when the person is actually rendered unconscious, correct? >> that's correct. >> and intentionally so. >> yes, sir. >> could you please underline unconscious neck restraint as you see it in this response -- [inaudible] >> yes, sir. >> and what subject activity, what level of subject activity would be required to use an unconscious neck restraint? >> according to this chart, it's in the red area, so it would be active aggression. >> okay. and do you agree with that in. >> yes. i think the last slide we talked about active reis sis dance if other techniques didn't work, but definitely active aggression. >> if we looked, you could also find a conscious neck restraint the, and that's the neck restraint that's used for the purpose of control, correct? >> correct. >> could you underline where that is in this force continuum, exhibit 110. and so the conscious neck restraint is authorized in
circumstances where there's, in fact, active resistance, is that right in. >> yes, sir. >> so then if there was something like passive resistance, the conscious -- north the conscious neck restraint nor the unconscious neck restraint would not be authorized, is that right. >> >> would not be authorized? >> that is correct. >> that's correct. >> for some forms of active resistance, would it? >> that's correct. >> and if the subject is offering no resistance, obviously, then no neck restraint would be authorized. >> that's correct. >> or any restraint. >> or any -- >> or any restraint if there's no -- >> generally, no. >> in addition to the classroom training, you actually teach officers, show them physically
how to do these sort of neck restraints? >> yes, sir. >> at this time i'd like to republish exhibit 17. sir, is this an mpd-trained neck restraint? >> no, sir. >> has it ever been? >> not to my -- neck restraint? no, sir. >> is this the an mpd-authorized restraint technique? >> knee on the neck would be something that does happen in use of force, unauthorized. >> and under what circumstances would that be authorized? how long can you do that? >> i don't know if there's a time frame. it would depend on the circumstances at the time. >> which would include what? >> the type of resistance you're getting from the subject you're putting the knee on. >> and so if there was, say for example, the subject was under control and handcuffed, would this be authorized? >> i would say no.
>> you can take that down, please. >> continuing in this defensive tactics presentation, if you could go back to exhibit 119, page 56. you also teach officers the proper handcuffing techniques, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and according to the handcuffing techniques, the handcuffs are to be handcuffed behind the back, and the handcuff is to be double locked. >> [inaudible] >> sure. [inaudible conversations]
>> watching live coverage here on c-span2 of the seventh day of the trial of former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin charged in the death of george floyd. we're going to bring you back to the courtroom when they return live. you can also watch live online at c-span.org. if you miss any of the proceedings throughout the day, you can also watch the day's testimony at 8 p.m. eastern time, and we'll have have that here on c-span2. while they're in a break, we've been looking back at some of the testimony from earlier starting off the day today before jurors were seated, lawyers discussed whether or not to call george floyd's friend maurice lester hall to testify. he was in the car at the time mr. floyd was pulled out and pinned to the ground. we'll take a look at this morning's testimony. >> -- on a motion from witness maurice hall. could you spell your name because we've gotten different spellings on your name. >> the